Will someone be able to figure out this new ranking system?

I know in Season I someone had the system down to the math itself, but with a new season, the system seems to have become even less transparent. "You will be promoted after consistently rising in your skill." What's skill? Your points? Games won? What's consistent? A streak? 5:1 ratio? 2:1 ratio? We also have no idea if we're close to being promoted or demoted. One could win 100 games and not be promoted because they're doing something wrong and not know what it is. Granted, I feel the matchmaking has improved (for me at least) since the update, but now I'm at total loss as to how close/far I am from the next promotion. If there a way we can find how this is being calculated?

I'm frustrated by it right now. Not because of progression, but because it seems irrelevant to match making. All night my teams have been terrible while we face Pele on wheels and get demolished. How does this happen game in and game out? I don't claim to be awesome at this game but FFS the games can be horribly unbalanced.

Hehe. But yeah, I understand some people just have bad games, but it can be extremely volatile. "Oh you lost a match? Time to assign you to a team with Kronovi and Gibbs." "Oh you won that match? Now you have to face those two." Like, hello?

This keeps happening to me in ranked as well. I've lost 4-5 straight matches in it because my team mates have all been horrible, while the other team is at least all competent. I don't claim to be the best player in the world or anything, far from it, but these guys I was matched with were horrible.

My friend who has played a ton since season 2 began said he demoted on purpose to see how many games he had to win before being promoted again. He said he won 12 out of 20 games and was promoted back up again. I don't know which division he was in or what game type he was playing.

I ran with a buddy for the placement games, he scored way more than me but obviously our win/loss was the same since we did all 10 games together. Neither one of us had played prior to this since the patch/season 2 came out. I ended up as prospect 3 and he ended up as prospect 1. No idea why! :D

So I've been using rocketleaguestats.com to put numbers to rankings. I decided to comb through whatever steam profiles I could to pull rankings and numbers associated with them. Keep in mind I only looked at roughly 20ish accounts to pull these numbers so it will be incomplete.

This isn't by any means set in stone and could be off. But aside from one instance of rankings slightly overlapping the results were all pretty consistent and could possibly give you an idea as to where you stand and if you're close to ranking up.

Prospect

P1: 62-73

P2: N/A

P3: 283

PE: 397-401

Challenger

C1: 439-515

C2: 523-614 (this is where the overlap occurred)

C3: 610-729

CE: 735-812

Star Ratings

RS: 826-907

AS: N/A

SS: N/A

Ch: 1130-to infinity

Any more data that can be added to this list whether to help support it or prove it wrong would be greatly appreciated.

Welp. Unfortunately Psyonix has asked the operator of Rocketleaguestats.com to get stop displaying the skill rating for everyone. So unless someone can find a way to dig up your skill rating this list is basically useless.

I think (but don't actually know, so take it with a grain of salt) it depends on how established your MMR is currently. If you've played 500 games, 5 to 10 more isn't going to make a dent on your rating. If you've only played 50, 5 games is going to be a big factor.

Handful means many. I would assume around 20-30 games, because that's roughly how much it took in Season 1 to get about 100 points. And consistent isn't ambiguous. It means constant. Constant is not open to much interpretation.

The definition of constant is open to interpretation. A constant in math is a hard number. A constant can also be a consistent rise in the stock market. A constant can also be based on the slope of your MMR. And how long must this constant be held? 5 games? 10 games? 50,000? There are no solid numbers for us to go off of.

I can play unranked for fun, but after a few games (even really good ones) I get bored because I cannot quantify the progress.

For ranked / competitive I really would like to see my MMR. Not the RP points from last season, but just the MMR. Could even be visible on the leaderboars only.

As far as getting anxious when playing ranked - not seeing my points made NO difference, I'm still a nervous wreck ;) . I'd say it's actually worse, because I don't know what to expect - I don't see where I am, and therefore I could be just one loss from deranking (or win, as shown in another thread here).

Still, even if you knew what your mmr was would that change how well you perform? I mean, at a certain point you should know where your gameplay is lacking and be able to train to compensate for it. My point is, once you stop worrying about what rank you are (and really does it even matter?) you'll find you play more relaxed and overall at a higher caliber.

Side note: psyonix plans to show champion ranked players their mmr to see how close they are to top 100.

There is a huge difference here though. One has a real effect on your life and the other is pixels on a screen. Unless you are playing this game as a means of income there is literally no need to worry about what your rank is.

Like I said in an earlier comment, at a certain point you should be able to tell where your skills are lacking and be able to train to compensate for it.

Maybe there's an age gap here that's causing the split in opinions. I'm not saying you shouldn't care about doing well (we all want to be the best at everything we do), but I have too many other responsibilities to worry about things that deal with video games. If we were having this conversation 15 years ago I would probably agree with you.

It's a very sports like game when it adds these rankings. Why do we talk rank college football teams every week. Why do we rank BPL teams after every game? People want to see where they're at. It's competition.

Because these are real games where people make money based off their performance. Like I said, unless you're making money playing this game competitively there isn't a difference in what your rank is other than your own satisfaction; even then, knowing how close you are to ranking up or down won't affect your performance.

I dropped from rising star during a series that didn't feel bad (I wasn't losing a lot of games). After that I won a streak of 3 games, lost 1, won 2 more. I understand needing several games to change rankes. But I have no idea if I am close or what. Do I have to play 20 games to rank back up? How much of a win streak do I need to get back to the rank I just dropped from? It's frustrating having no idea what I need to do to get promoted to the rank I was just at.

I have yet to see somebody even change a rank. Up or down. I'm sure people have changed ranks. But as of right now I have played around 40 matches excluding the first 10 and have no idea whats going on. Im probably just going to stop playing until this is resolved.

I've ranked up and down! Seems like it takes time. I can't complain though, I ranked up to challenger elite in doubles and so far I've had great competitive games every time with about 50/50 win loss ratio! Almost every game is decided by a goal or ends up in OT. I've been loving it

I think it's unfair to judge people on points too. I get a lot of ballchasers in my rank, so I'll have to defend, which means I cannot get as much points as them. It's very frustrating, since the one time you try to move up, they also stay up, leaving the goal undefended. There really is not a perfect way to rank people right now.

But it is better. Ballchasers tend to not get many points because they can't really hit the ball very good (clearing properly, passing, centering, shooting). I have the same feeling, but when sitting back I get so many opportunities to make plays I often, if not always, end up with a much higher score than the ballchasers.

But I think it should take into account your point average over the last 3/5/10 games for some kind of readjustment in terms of MMR.

Or you could keep it now, in which case the MMR will solely be your ability to win games. Yes there will be games when you can't do much becaue of teammates, but that exists in every game. Take a game like Dota2 for instance, 5 people in a team and you can only carry so much there too, yet MMR goes up and down for the team as a whole.

It's not a big problem, because MMR reflects your ability to win games. Nothing else. That also means adapting to your opponents and teammates, and even carrying when needed.

Personally individual points coming into the mix would be beneficial to someone like me because I so often end up way on top on scoreboards right now (Rising star in 2v2/3v3) but getting my MMR up is a real grind because of unbalance of teams and teammates sometimes. And I feel so many people don't just have bad days, but their skill doesn't even fit their MMR. And that is something individual points would fix, however, there is a big thing about this:

It's a team game and cooperation should be rewarded. If individual points came in the mix many people would ignore teamplay and focus on the points, leading to worse games in ranked overall.

And that is the main reason why any individual points shouldn't be counting.

Bah, the whole post became a mess because it was written while goal replays where shown in my game, but I think I get the point across :)

Thanks for the great response. You have some very good points. I just think the current system is as flawed as the previous one, since this one gives me less incentive to ladder. Currently, there isn't a one-way catches all system available for team games, since individual effort is really hard to quantize.

I think they should base it off of both. Win/loss is important, but at the same time if you get ~100 points and won while the other two on your team got >400, then you didn't really do much and should get less of a boost than them.

On the other hand, if you lost 5-4 but you scored 3 of yours and assisted the others, I feel you should still gain a bit as you still played well, just your teammates did not.

To a point yes and to a point no. Points are not generated for critical things like contesting the ball near the walls or mid, points are not given for passing to someone who then sets the third guy up for the shot. The easiest way to compare one team to another is what team won. After that if you look at who won the person who got MVP can often not be the person who made the win happen. It takes a team to win so it only makes sense to base MMR of how you play as a team.